List Bookmarks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds the ordering dimension (save date) as behavioral context. It does not mention paging behavior, result caps, or what happens when the list/tag name does not exist, so it adds only modest value over the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, the primary capability first and the routing rule second, with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and annotations are both present and rich, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the core use case and the sibling routing. Minor gap: pagination and the archived/favourited filters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves the description a step short of self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so nearly every parameter is already documented at source. The description reinforces the tag and list filters and the save-date ordering, but adds no syntax, matching rules, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse bookmarks') plus the ordering dimension ('by save date') and the two scoping options (one list, one tag). It is clearly distinguishable from search_bookmarks. It slightly under-describes scope, since archived/favourited filtering and sorting are also part of what the tool does but go unmentioned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative tool ('use search_bookmarks') and the exact condition that selects it ('For text search or combined filters'), even giving a query-syntax example. An agent knows without inference which of the two browsing tools to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.